Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's job is to add nuance. It does so by clarifying that the delete is 'safe' and 'recoverable,' and it discloses approval requirements (write-tier, manager approval, 'card is the yes — do not re-ask in chat'). This goes beyond the annotations and improves agent behavior, though it does not mention any downstream effects on related data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured with a primary sentence, a routing line, and a bracketed approval note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the approval note is clearly separated. While the bracketed note is a bit long, it contains critical behavioral instructions and does not feel bloated. Overall efficient for the complexity involved.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, identifier options, and even the unusual approval workflow. It does not explain return values (not needed without an output schema) or what happens after archiving, but the essential information an agent needs to call this correctly is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are already documented. The description only adds a summary ('Identify by title or ID') that mirrors the schema's 'use this or playbook_title/id' notes. It adds no substantial new meaning beyond what the schema offers, matching the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Archive a Playbook') and the resource, explicitly notes it is a 'safe delete — recoverable,' and defines the trigger use case: 'Use when the operator wants to retire a playbook.' This distinguishes it from other playbook tools (create, update, run, etc.) by focusing on retirement intent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It includes an explicit 'Use when' clause and a routing instruction ('Retire a Playbook → use this') that tells the agent exactly when to invoke it. However, it does not name alternative tools or state conditions when not to use it (e.g., if a permanent delete or edit is needed), leaving some ambiguity for edge cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.